Swedish referendum about the Euro

[Jonathan]

Today the Swedes are going to the ballot boxes and vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the introduction of the Euro in our country. Of the fifteen nations in the European Union only two countries besides Sweden don’t have the Euro as their currency: The UK and Denmark. The government in the UK has decided not to introduce the Euro yet, but they are very eager to do so. In Denmark a referendum about the Euro was held in 2000 where the Danes rejected the idea of having the same currency as most of the EU for the time being.

Today we will see if the Swedes are voting like the Danes did, or actually want to have the same currency as Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.

But it is with some sorrow that we vote today due to the murder of our foreign minister. She was one of the Yes-side’s most prominent persons. Her death might affect today’s vote, either so that people are more eager to vote ‘Yes’ but people might become more anxious to vote ‘No’.

I for one have wanted to introduce the Euro ever since the currency was born, so I will vote ‘Yes’. If we don’t introduce the Euro now we will have to wait till like 2015 until we can have another referendum about the introduction of the European currency.

So, you Europeans out there who use the Euro on a daily basis, what are your thoughts about a possible full Swedish membership in the Economic and Monetary Union?

[jerseydevil]

I think it would be overall best for Sweden - bugt not necessarily the best for the US. The more cohesive Europe becomes - the more power they will wield - economically and politically.

When you have France that is about the size of Texas - they have little political or economic clout - when you have all the European continent acting as one unit - they become more powerful. It's essentially our "slogan" - "E Pluribus Unum" means - "From Many One". Or "United we stand, divided we fall". The sum of our states is what makes the US so great. NJ would be very small and isignificant as it's own country - but trade, defense, currency, etc is handled by the federal government - so we don't have to manage our own monetary policy. I don't have to exchange money to go to New York (45 miles north) or Pennsylvania (12 miles south).

By the way - does Sweden accept the Euro? Canada will accept American dollars (they just have two different prices) - but usually it's cheaper to get your money exchanged anyway.

My friend in Italy switched over on Feb 28th 2002 of course. She was looking forward to it - but she said it was confusion a lot of people. This is what she said concerning Italy switching to the Euro....

The Euro: there's a lot of talking here, I think it's just a question of getting used to it, it's just a different currency. I mean, even if you cross the borders to Switzerland or France you find a different currency, and it takes just a few days to get used to it. Maybe people with a lower instruction could find it difficult, but... well, there's always at least one article in every newspaper, news on TV are always making the countdown, at the supermarket we have prices both in Euro and in Lire since....wow, I don't remember but it's almost one year I guess, now Euro has become the "major" currency, meaning that you have all prices in Euro, the total price in Euro and they do you the favour to tell you also how much it is in Lire....
I've had enough of this and I can't wait to february 28th.

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
By the way - does Sweden accept the Euro?

The Swedish 'krona' is the only legal tender, but the biggest supermarkets and stores accept the Euro anyway. Some do even accept American dollars.

[Earniel]

It would be nice if Sweden takes on the euro. It has its benefits (as well as its negative sides). It'll be easier I suppose to join the monetary union now. The euro has stabilised itself now, it was a bit of a gamble for the countries that took on the euro on its lauch.

I just heard on the radionews that 'yes' and 'no' in the referendum are very close to eachother at the moment. I'd love to welcome you Swedes in the Economic and Monetary Union, but I would understand the reasons if Sweden votes no.

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
When you have France that is about the size of NY - they have little political or economic clout

Excusse me JD France is just a little bit bigger than New York your showing your ignorance again ! They do indeed whole quite a lot of political power correct me if im wrong but they are a G7 and hold a good few Vetos!

As for Sweden going to the ballot boxes good on you allthough i do worry about this issue for a good many people. As part of my course i did European studies and in the course of my work i know the Euro is a good thing and we need it in this country. Im an informed voter but i do worry that the case in the UK could be that a good 60% would go to the boxes not knowing or understand the repucussions of such a move and could be easily swayed by the old we would be loseing our soverinty line!

Im just not sure that going into the Euro is a descission to be taken by the whole country to be honest the government is put there by us in the hope (the vain hope) that they should know better than any others what is best for this country. I dont fancy a lot of people i know having a vote on a issue they little understand

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
Excusse me JD France is just a little bit bigger than New York your showing your ignorance again !

I made a mistake and changed it to Texas. France - 211,208 sq miles, Texas - 267,277 sq miles. California alone has the 5th largest ecomony in the world.

They do indeed whole quite a lot of political power correct me if im wrong but they are a G7 and hold a good few Vetos!

Yes they do - but a powerhouse against America - they're not. It's not like the French currency was a match against the US dollar before switching to the Euro.
[Edited in]
Also - you put them into a organizational eliments where they have a voice - like the G7. Without them being in these organizations - they would not have the power - which reinforces my statement about smaller countries becoming more powerful through connections with others. That is what the United States did when we joined together as a country and that is what the EU is currently doing.

By the way - if I had a dollar for everytime I saw an ignorant post by a European on this board about America - I would be very very rich.

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
By the way - if I had a dollar for everytime I saw an ignorant post by a European on this board about America - I would be very very rich.

And if i had a Euro for everytime JD tried to show how great America is...

Btw, there is another referendum today. Estonia is voting about a EU membership. The 'Yes' side is expected to win a landslide victory.
You are welcome to the EU after the vote, Estonia

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Jonathan
And if i had a Euro for everytime JD tried to show how great America is...

America is great - to deny otherwise would be ignorant. But I don't think it's better than other countries. Are we perfect? Of course not - never claimed we were. However, I do like it better - but I have never said that countries had to be like the US. Each country is different. But we are currently the greatest military and economic power in the world. The EU - by joining together will counteract the economic part possibly. The military is unlikely, unless europe is willing to eliminate some social programs - which seems highly unlikely.

There was a post last year by a european about how Europe by creating the EU was doing something that had never before been done in history. I had to point out that America did it first. Each of the 13 states had their own currency, their own trade agreements, etc. Through the Constitutional Convention - the states joined together. The EU is actually only going half as far as the America did.

In my view the power of the EU has a DIRECT affect on the US. And the subject of the EU should be on the minds of every American. I'm not against the EU - just keeping my eyes open as to what goes on. I don't trust Chiracs remarks he made back in march concerning what role he thinks the EU should play/

[Fat middle]

Originally posted by Eärniel
It would be nice if Sweden takes on the euro. It has its benefits (as well as its negative sides). It'll be easier I suppose to join the monetary union now. The euro has stabilised itself now, it was a bit of a gamble for the countries that took on the euro on its lauch.

I just heard on the radionews that 'yes' and 'no' in the referendum are very close to eachother at the moment. I'd love to welcome you Swedes in the Economic and Monetary Union, but I would understand the reasons if Sweden votes no.

I cannot say it better.

I must say that I thought it'd be easier to get accostumjed to the new currency, but after a year and a half evereybody in Spain is "thinking in Euros" at last.

Euro is not only good for European (and each country's) economics. It's also good for people. In these two years I've travelled to Portugal and Italy (passing through France). I have done that several times before... man, now it's way more easy to understand foreign prices. I had always suspected that the french were robbing us, but now I know ot for sure!!

[Jonathan]

I'm off to the boxes now. I hope my vote can contribute to improving the European spirit

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I think it would be overall best for Sweden - bugt not necessarily the best for the US. The more cohesive Europe becomes - the more power they will wield - economically and politically.

But isn't there a strong possibility that it could be worse off? Economically, the three E.U. members that don't have the euro (Denmark, Britain & Sweden) are actually doing much better than the ones that do have it. And there's the fear that "it will move power from Sweden to Brussels".

Jonathan, have you noticed particular opposition to adopting the euro in females?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Linaewen
But isn't there a strong possibility that it could be worse off? Economically, the three E.U. members that don't have the euro (Denmark, Britain & Sweden) are actually doing much better than the ones that do have it. And there's the fear that "it will move power from Sweden to Brussels".

Well that's why Britain decided against the EU currency - as for the situation with Denmark and Sweden, I'm not sure.

Each country would have to see where they're ecoomic situation stands and see whether it makes sense to change their currency and hand their economic independence over to the EU. It does improve trade between the European countries though by having a single currency as well as bring other longterm benefits to adopt the Euro.

It was basically an "easy" decision for Italy because their currency was in such bad shape. The opposite is true for the countries whose currency is strong - such as Britain's.

[GrayMouser]

While the Euro looks good in theory, one problem is that the European Central Bank is still wedded to anti-inflationary policies, even in time of recession and low-growth (like now) when expansionary policies are advised.

The other more important one is that the European economies are still not sufficiently integrated - one country can be having a boom and want to put the brakes on while others are in recession and should be seeking looser policies.

This happens in America too- the Rust Belt can be in decline while the South-West is expanding- but there is much greater mobility in the American markets, especially labour- people will move much more easily between Michigan and Arizona than between Italy and Belgium

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by Jonathan
But it is with some sorrow that we vote today due to the murder of our foreign minister. She was one of the Yes-side’s most prominent persons. Her death might affect today’s vote, either so that people are more eager to vote ‘Yes’ but people might become more anxious to vote ‘No’.

I sincerely hope they catch that mongrel who murdered her.
Last time I checked Dagens Nyheter site's poll (yesterday), I think about 8% of people were changing their minds about what to vote due to Anna Lindh's death. Roughly about 14% are still undecided, and percentages for each side ('Yes' or 'No') are very close. I wonder what the result will be.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
....as well as bring other longterm benefits to adopt the Euro.

One of the long term effects they are worried about is the 'slashing' of public sector jobs (teachers, nurses) which mostly females have- resulting in opposition to the euro introduction. That's why I was wondering if Jon had noticed any especial female hostility to it.

[jerseydevil]

Linaewen -

The same held true in the forming of the United States. Not all states regarded it in their best interest to ratify the Constirution - New York being one of them. The Constitution generally reduced the power of the larger more powerful states and improved the power and influence of the larger states. Even though we celebrate September 17th 1787 as the birth of our Constitution, it was not in effect until New Hampshire ratified it in June 21, 1788. Rhode Island was the last state to ratify it on May 29th, 1790. I'm not sure why Rhode Island didn't want to ratify it right away - it was mostly the large states that had a problem with it.

This is the order of ratification....

Delaware - December 7, 1787
Pennsylvania - December 12, 1787
New Jersey - December 18, 1787
Georgia - January 2, 1788
Connecticut - January 9, 1788
Massachusetts - February 6, 1788
Maryland - April 28, 1788
South Carolina - May 23, 1788
New Hampshire - June 21, 1788
Virginia - June 25, 1788
New York - June 26, 1788
North Carolina - November 21, 1789
Rhode Island - May 29, 1790

A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the U.S. Constitution

... Alexander Hamilton privately assessed the chances of the Constitution for ratification. In its favor were the support of Washington, commercial interests, men of property, creditors, and the belief among many Americans that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate. Against it were the opposition of a few influential men in the convention and state politicians fearful of losing power, the general revulsion against taxation, the suspicion that a centralized government would be insensitive to local interests, and the fear among debtors that a new government would "restrain the means of cheating Creditors."

This is the letter from George Washington (President of the Federal Convention) to President of the Congress (under the Articles of Confederation)

In Convention, September 17, 1787.

Sir,

We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled, that Constitution which has appeared to us the most adviseable.

The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union: But the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident-Hence results the necessity of a different organization.

It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was encreased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.

In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensible.

That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every state is not perhaps to be expected; but each will doubtless consider, that had her interest been alone consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.

With great respect, We have the honor to be, Sir,

Your Excellency's most obedient and humble servants,

GEORGE WASHINGTON, President.

By unanimous Order of the Convention.

His Excellency the PRESIDENT of CONGRESS.

[jerseydevil]

For additional information...

The American Constitution: A Documentary Record
State Debates on the Adoption of the Constitution

I know this thread is about the adoption of the Euro by Sweden - but in my view - what the US did in 1787 is very similar to what Europe is trying to do now (but on a smaller scale since the countries will remain individual countries, at least for now). Europe can learn a lot by understanding the Consitutional Convention of the United States and how the differences between the states had to be adressed. Europe of course has been working on the EU for over 30 years I believe, whereas the United States developed the Constitution in 8 months.

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Yes they do - but a powerhouse against America - they're not. It's not like the French currency was a match against the US dollar before switching to the Euro.
[Edited in]
Also - you put them into a organizational eliments where they have a voice - like the G7. Without them being in these organizations - they would not have the power - which reinforces my statement about smaller countries becoming more powerful through connections with others. That is what the United States did when we joined together as a country and that is what the EU is currently doing.

By the way - if I had a dollar for everytime I saw an ignorant post by a European on this board about America - I would be very very rich.

lol you do amuse me. Of course these things are done to increase well i wouldnt say power because i dont think any european country wants power we know far to well what that causes.

The EU i think is a very good way of working we introduced standardised employment right and are free to work anywhere within the EU free movement of trade and people. Of course it makes sence to further promote links by all work from the same currency!

JD i do find your comments about France a tad insulting they are a succesful enough country. In you first post you tried to take it to how this effect america frankly i dont think the EU give a single thought to how this effect america we are simply trying to increase trade between ourn own nations to be honest the Euro if anything has less to do with america of all our policys

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by Linaewen
One of the long term effects they are worried about is the 'slashing' of public sector jobs (teachers, nurses) which mostly females have- resulting in opposition to the euro introduction. That's why I was wondering if Jon had noticed any especial female hostility to it.

No, I haven't noticed that women are generally more against the Euro than men even though polls show that is the case.
That there will be 'slashes' in the public sector if we introduce the Euro is bullshite. Au contraire, I believe that the Euro will generate even more money to pump into the public sector.

Now I've voted. They will start counting the votes in approximately 2 ½ hours.

[Fat middle]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Europe can learn a lot by understanding the Consitutional Convention of the United States and how the differences between the states had to be adressed.

Hahahaha You sound as a little boy speaking to an old man on how he should resolve his problems.

The reality of Europe is much more complex than that of the thirteen colonies and the rest of the history of your nation. Did you know that Spain was unified at the begining of the 16th century by the joining of different kingdoms as Castilla, Aragon and Navarra? And we did it in a very peaceful way.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Fat middle
Hahahaha You sound as a little boy speaking to an old man on how he should resolve his problems.

That's the typical arrogant Eurpean view toward the United States. The problem with Europeans feeling that they have nothing to learn from the US and they have some vast knownledge and experience to bestow on the United States is that nations themselves have NO memory - unlike people. We were the FIRST modern democracy - Europe, including France - learned from the US.

Politicians don't have PERSONAL memories of their country's past - you have no vast knowledge over an American just because you live in an older country. What you know about World War II is no different than an American. What you know about the 16th century - is no different than what an American knows. You read about it in books and study history that is the only way people gain experience of the world's past - unless you personally lived through that period of time.

The reality of Europe is much more complex than that of the thirteen colonies and the rest of the history of your nation.

I didn't say it wasn't more difficult. I agree it's more difficult - but it's not any different. But overall - the only thing that makes you're situation more difficult is that you have more of an established culture, with your own languages. The states were individual countries, with their own laws and own ideas - that they had to

Did you know that Spain was unified at the begining of the 16th century by the joining of different kingdoms as Castilla, Aragon and Navarra? And we did it in a very peaceful way.

It's ridiculous to say that you joining different kingdoms together is the same as us developing our constitution. Most of Europe is made up of countries which at one point were different kingdoms.